Citation Nr: 21021116 Decision Date: 04/09/21 Archive Date: 04/09/21 DOCKET NO. 13-21 561A DATE: April 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1951 to January 1955. This matter is on appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2010 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was remanded in March 2017, December 2018, and February 2020. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. The Veteran has been diagnosed at various points throughout the period of appeal with several bilateral eye disabilities, including bilateral cataracts, bilateral posterior vitreous detachment, drusen, and bilateral age-related macular degeneration. This matter was most recently remanded in February 2020 to obtain an addendum medical opinion to address whether the Veteran’s reported in-service eye strain and fatigue from reading airplane schematics as well as claimed in-service exposure to radiation from radar equipment and antennae and thermal heat from jet engines are at least as likely as not related to his bilateral cataracts. The RO obtained a medical opinion in December 2020. Unfortunately, while the December 2020 opinion addressed the Veteran’s reported exposure to radiation from radar equipment and antennae and thermal heat, the December 2020 medical opinion did not address the Veteran’s reported eye strain. Therefore, a remand is required to obtain a new VA medical opinion to comply with February 2020 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Additionally, the RO obtained a medical opinion in September 2019 that provided a negative nexus between the Veteran’s other eye disabilities and his reported in-service eye strain and fatigue from reading airplane schematics as well as claimed in-service exposure to radiation from radar equipment and antennae and thermal heat from jet engines. Therefore, a new opinion is necessary to adequately address the Veteran’s contentions. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an opinion from a qualified clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral eye disabilities, to include nuclear sclerotic cataracts, senile cataracts, drusen, bilateral posterior vitreous detachment, exudative macular degeneration, and non-exudative macular degeneration are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including eye strain from reading small circuit diagrams and schematics in service. The VA examiner should also opine whether the Veteran’s bilateral eye disabilities, to include, drusen, bilateral posterior vitreous detachment, exudative macular degeneration, and non-exudative macular degeneration are at least as likely as not due to the Veteran’s reported in-service exposure to radiation from radar equipment and antennae and thermal heat from jet engines. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Boal, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.